For many Bowie typifies what has been descibed in the Progressive vs. Prog thread as a progressive artist who is not Prog. Almost everything he does is simultaneously eclectic and progressive - his albums generally arrive from the leftfield and land slap bang in the middle of the mainstream. And that's where the problem lies.

He produced some Prog songs, but maybe not whole Prog albums, he did Concept albums (albeit within fairly a standard rock format) and even ventured into the realm of Art Rock and Art School Rock. He has created fusions of every school of music you can care to imagine: minimalism, krautrock, jazz, soul, hip-hop, electronic, hard-rock, folk... and of course prog... (He is also pretty unique in suceeding in influencing some of the people he was influenced by - the only other artist to do that I can think of is Trent Reznor...) yet he remains a mainstream performer in the eyes of the world, even when producing non-mainstream albums.

Nothing ch-ch-ch-changes.

"You know what uranium is, right?Itís this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.But nobody talks about that."

Of course he is. He's more "progressive" then half of the bands that get labelled as that. No, he doesn't have that classic 70's prog sound, Hammond organs, instrumental prowess, etc. But as artist and a visionary, he's extremely forward thinking. Low and Heroes are some of the greatest albums of all time, and what's great about them is that they haven't been able to alienate a certain audience or fan. They're pop albums, but with immense experimentation and creativity.

For many Bowie typifies what has been descibed in the Progressive vs. Prog thread as a progressive artist who is not Prog

Quite this. Perhaps a critical factor is that he was not really an instrumentalist and it was not a 'band'. It was the music conceived by a singer-songwriter. Had he been a competent instrumentalist, or had he been just the composer and singer in a stable band with virtuoso musicians, his output might have been closer to proper Prog.

I find it not too different from the case of Peter Gabriel's solo output, progressive and with some Prog leanings but not archetypal proper Prog.

Dean wrote:

He produced some Prog songs, but maybe not whole Prog albums, he did Concept albums (albeit within fairly a standard rock format) and even ventured into the realm of Art Rock and Art School Rock. He has created fusions of every school of music you can care to imagine: minimalism, krautrock, jazz, soul, hip-hop, electronic, hard-rock, folk... and of course prog... (He is also pretty unique in suceeding in influencing some of the people he was influenced by - the only other artist to do that I can think of is Trent Reznor...) yet he remains a mainstream performer in the eyes of the world, even when producing non-mainstream albums.

The point is clear but this formulation seems to imply that anything "mainstream" can not be "Prog" by definition, which I do not agree as a matter of principle.

For many Bowie typifies what has been descibed in the Progressive vs. Prog thread as a progressive artist who is not Prog

Quite this. Perhaps a critical factor is that he was not really an instrumentalist and it was not a 'band'. It was the music conceived by a singer-songwriter. Had he been a competent instrumentalist, or had he been just the composer and singer in a stable band with virtuoso musicians, his output might have been closer to proper Prog.

I find it not too different from the case of Peter Gabriel's solo output, progressive and with some Prog leanings but not archetypal proper Prog.

Dean wrote:

He produced some Prog songs, but maybe not whole Prog albums, he did Concept albums (albeit within fairly a standard rock format) and even ventured into the realm of Art Rock and Art School Rock. He has created fusions of every school of music you can care to imagine: minimalism, krautrock, jazz, soul, hip-hop, electronic, hard-rock, folk... and of course prog... (He is also pretty unique in suceeding in influencing some of the people he was influenced by - the only other artist to do that I can think of is Trent Reznor...) yet he remains a mainstream performerin the eyes of the world, even when producing non-mainstream albums.

The point is clear but this formulation seems to imply that anything "mainstream" can not be "Prog" by definition, which I do not agree as a matter of principle.

I tend to write whole sentences rather than well chosen phrases because they mean so much more thus negating any need for the reader to search for any implied meaning, subtext or hidden message burried between the lines.

"You know what uranium is, right?Itís this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things.But nobody talks about that."

I tend to write whole sentences rather than well chosen phrases because they mean so much more thus negating any need for the reader to search for any implied meaning, subtext or hidden message burried between the lines.

Perhaps a critical factor is that he was not really an instrumentalist and it was not a 'band'. It was the music conceived by a singer-songwriter. Had he been a competent instrumentalist, or had he been just the composer and singer in a stable band with virtuoso musicians, his output might have been closer to proper Prog.

To quote from Bowie's wikipage:
"Bowie plays many instruments, among them electric, acoustic, and twelve-string guitar; alto, tenor and baritone saxophone; keyboards including piano, synthesisers and Mellotron; harmonica, Stylophone, xylophone, vibraphone, koto, drums and percussion, and string instruments including viola and cello"
Not really an instrumentalist?

He was in several stable bands - The Spiders and Tin Machine among them.

Perhaps a critical factor is that he was not really an instrumentalist and it was not a 'band'. It was the music conceived by a singer-songwriter. Had he been a competent instrumentalist, or had he been just the composer and singer in a stable band with virtuoso musicians, his output might have been closer to proper Prog.

To quote from Bowie's wikipage:
"Bowie plays many instruments, among them electric, acoustic, and twelve-string guitar; alto, tenor and baritone saxophone; keyboards including piano, synthesisers and Mellotron; harmonica, Stylophone, xylophone, vibraphone, koto, drums and percussion, and string instruments including viola and cello"
Not really an instrumentalist?

He was in several stable bands - The Spiders and Tin Machine among them.

Sure he could play several instruments, but I meant that he was never a fully dedicated and highly competent instrumentalist. His approach to songwriting was more akin to the singer-songwriter approach (many if not most singer-songwriters can play some instruments too).

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum